HN
Today

I found a Vulnerability. They found a Lawyer

A diving instructor discovered a critical vulnerability in a major insurer's portal, exposing minors' sensitive data through basic flaws like sequential IDs and static passwords. Instead of gratitude for responsible disclosure, the company responded with legal threats, accusing the researcher of criminal activity. This story captivated HN due to its classic 'shoot the messenger' scenario, sparking debates on corporate security culture, researcher protections, and the very authenticity of the article itself.

60
Score
27
Comments
#4
Highest Rank
3h
on Front Page
First Seen
Feb 20, 8:00 PM
Last Seen
Feb 20, 10:00 PM
Rank Over Time
454

The Lowdown

The author, Yannick Dixken, a platform engineer and diving instructor, stumbled upon a glaring security flaw in a major diving insurer's member portal during a dive trip. This vulnerability allowed easy access to sensitive personal data, including that of minors, due to laughably simple mechanisms: incrementing numeric user IDs combined with a static default password that users were never forced to change. What began as a textbook responsible disclosure attempt quickly devolved into a legal standoff, underscoring significant issues in corporate security and researcher relations.

  • The core vulnerability involved sequential user IDs and a static default password across accounts, which facilitated unauthorized access to full user profiles, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and dates of birth, some belonging to children as young as 14.
  • The author confirmed the flaw with a rudimentary Selenium script, highlighting that no advanced exploits were needed to compromise numerous accounts.
  • Following established protocols, Dixken reported the issue to CSIRT Malta and the organization directly, offering a standard 30-day embargo for remediation.
  • Instead of engaging their IT team, the organization's lawyers responded, accusing Dixken of potential criminal offenses under Maltese law and demanding he sign a broad non-disclosure agreement.
  • The company disingenuously attempted to shift blame to users for not changing passwords, despite their own failure to implement basic security measures as mandated by GDPR, particularly Article 5(1)(f) and Article 24(1).
  • Although the vulnerability was eventually fixed, Dixken received no confirmation that affected users were notified, potentially violating GDPR Article 34(1) concerning data breach communications to individuals.

This entire episode vividly illustrates the "chilling effect" within the security research community, where organizations often prioritize reputation management and legal intimidation over genuine data protection and fostering collaboration with ethical hackers. The author stresses that an organization's response to a vulnerability reveals more about its security culture than the vulnerability itself.

The Gossip

Corporate Cover-Ups & Chilling Effects

Many commenters expressed dismay and frustration over the company's aggressive legal response, seeing it as a prime example of the 'shoot the messenger' phenomenon. The discussion revolved around how companies, particularly those in regulated sectors like insurance, opt for legal intimidation over genuine collaboration and transparency in security matters. Several users shared personal experiences of internal security concerns being suppressed or downplayed by management to avoid accountability, highlighting a pervasive disconnect between security best practices and corporate realities, often at the expense of employee careers.

AI Allegations & Authenticity

A significant portion of the comments debated the authenticity of the article, with some users asserting it was entirely or partly generated by an LLM. Accusations cited the article's formatting, repetitive rhetorical devices, and structured lists as evidence. The author, 'toomuchtodo', directly refuted these claims, emphasizing the plausibility of such incompetence in cybersecurity. The debate underscored a growing skepticism towards online content and the difficulty of discerning human-written narratives from AI-assisted ones, even for plausible stories.

Responsible Disclosure & Legal Hurdles

The discussion delved into the intricacies of vulnerability reporting, the legal landscape, and what constitutes 'responsible' disclosure. Commenters explored the dilemma researchers face regarding legal risks when accessing PII, even for verification, and suggested alternative methods to prove vulnerabilities without crossing legal lines. There was a strong call for established national reporting authorities to act as intermediaries, protecting researchers from retaliatory legal action while ensuring proper handling of vulnerabilities. The potential for 'name and shame' tactics was also debated, with some arguing it's justified given the company's aggressive stance and potential GDPR violations.